iPhone News

Posted November 08, 2015
Share To
 
 

The British paper, The Independent, noted last week that most Syrian refugees have smart phones.  Not old Nokias, but state of the art smart phones.  

This should not come as a surprise.  According to the World Bank, there are 87 smart phones for every 100 people i Syria.  (There are 110 for every hundred in Egypt and 123 per hundred in the UK).  Everyone has a smart phone now. And every smart phone has the capability of shooting broadcast qualiyt video.  They also have the capabiity of editing it and transmitting (or sharing) it worldwide, for free.

You have to assume that people undergoing the kind of trauma that the refugees are experiencing are probably shooting a lot of video - video about what is happenign to them, as it actually happens.  

This is what you would call pretty good reporting. There are now apparently 3 million Syrian refugees.  If 85 out of every 100 have smart phones, then there are now about 2.5 million smart phones all shooting video of their personal experiences 24 hours a day.

That is a lot of footage. Real footage. Real reporting.  

You might think you might see some of that, even a small fraction of it on the evening news.  Yet in the past year, how much of that Refugee's Footage have you seen?

I would say none, but my friend Ian Wagdin at The BBC showed me a story that The BBC ran of a refugee riot in Cyprus, shot by refugees on their smart phones. So that's one. And it's some pretty compelling stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34715877

But other than that... nada.

Why is that?

Why do we ignore such a potentially powerful source of original journalism? I mean, this is the REAL DEAL - not some 3rd hand report from some reporter fro Atlanta who has flown into Turkey or Bosnia or Hungary and doesn't speak the language and can only generalize and can't even interview anyone.  

Why is it we can't 'trust' 'them' to tell the truth?  

 


Recent Posts

Bad News, Good News
June 17, 2024

The old news mantra — if it bleeds, it leads has been replaced by if it’s gross, adios. The prospect of a news-free electorate is terrifying.


The news business is in trouble. In the past decade, more than 2400 local newspapers have closed. NBC Nightly News gets 5 million viewers per night, in a nation of 340 million people, so most people are not watching. What are they watching? Netflix.


For most of human history, people lived in a world without news. The concept simply did not exist. The idea of news is really a 19th-century phenomenon, driven first by newspapers, and then by electronic media which brought us radio, then TV and now the web. Now, it seems, we are headed back to a world without news. Not because the technology is not there, but rather because, increasingly, people are no longer interested in news, at least in the way it is packaged now.


Share Page on: